If they want to work for them? Sure, why not? If you work at McDonalds do you not have to wear their uniforms? You join the military you wear a uniform. You work for an auto mechanic you are wearing a unifrom. A sports team? Uniform. You are conforming to standards of dress all the time for work. WHy? Because the owners of the business want to convey a certain look that appeals to it's customers.

 I think what you are saying is a stretch with the hijab, but I would say employers can even ban the wear of them so why not require them? Every business has the right to ask it's employees to present a certain appearance. What is different between an Islamic business that caters to Muslims in a traditional sense than say a strip joint that that presents an opposite environment. They'd probably fire a woman who came out dressed from head to toe and refused to strip it off would they not (unless that made the joint tons of money then I'm sure they'd be fine with it)?

Now if we are talking one of those evil, greedy corporations forcing you to be employed by them (indenturement or slavery) and wearing what they say every single minute of every single day on the job or not , worshiping their chosen deity then we have a problem.

By that same token I find it just fine if an evil, greedy corporation is atheistic and wants no mention of God or religious activity within their organization, while on the job, then they have the right to ask those religious employees to keep it to themselves while on the clock or be fired.

It says no such thing. It says an orginization cannot be forced to support something they do not believe in. In fact it says the opposite. It in no way prohibits employers from covering contraceptives if they so choose it just doesn't allow the government to force entities who have religious objections to provide them. Which is in keeping with the 1st amendment of the US Constitution.

I find it intellectually distressing that people are okay with enforcing a lack of religious expression but not the other way around. Not to say I am in favor of enforcing religious beliefs, but that the fervor in which the anti religious crowd has for scrubbing religion from every where but ones most private domain (their home, which even these days isn't so private) just as wrong as a Theocracy. They are two extreme sides of the same dishonest coin.

If you don't believe in God or pratice religion great for you and you should in no way be forced to do so. But to say that because religion is everywhere you look because a majority of others choose to engage on religion is not tantamount to infringement on your right to be an atheist. And neither is giving an employer who objects to abortive contraceptives the right to say we will not pay for your access to them.

If I understand this correctly, I think it's a good thing. Employers shouldn't be forced to pay for contraceptives, or abortions under insurance.

And the religious beliefs of its employees that want their contraceptives covered by their insurance... don't matter? This is another case of conservatives favoring fundamentalist Christian ideology and corporations over the interest of individuals. They weren't forced to give out contraceptives by hand to each employee -- it was included as part of their insurance coverage if they chose to use it, because get this: preventing women from getting pregnant is cheaper than paying for abortions and pregnancies.

And the first ammendment is not talking just about Christianity, so the fact that this was a narrow ruling only involving contraceptives is mind boggling. What about people of other faiths who have other religious objections. An orthodox Jew refusing to cover insulin for a diabetic employee because it comes from pigs, blood transfusions, vaccinations and other medical activities that certain faiths don't agree with. They don't matter either huh? It shouldn't matter right, because the religious rights of the emplyees shouldn't be trumped by the religious rights of their bosses. Except for Christian beliefs apparently -- they deserve special treatment. Because of this ruling, a corporation's religious views in fact, do trump the religious views of its employees.This decision is literally only protecting the interest of Christian business owners who look down on contraceptives and is a blatant betrayal of the first ammendment. We will see other faiths try to pull the same act in the future.

And this ruling also sets precedence that not only are corporations people, but they also now have religious beliefs and can exempt themselves from laws they have a religious objection to. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Have to note company is not required to provide contraception at lower cost. This is company having the right to push the owners beliefs onto the employees at greater cost to employer and employee (insurance is not 100% paid for by the company, and in fact is just a substitute for salary or hourly wage anyway). It is a greater cost because insurance companies have stated that providing contraception lowers costs, not increases costs.

I don't know about you guys but shouldn't stuff like anticontraceptions and abortions be considered luxurys. Like nobody is forcing you to have relations and so why should other people pay for the stuff you choose to do. Insurance paying for abortions is like insurance paying for liposuction

This decision has nothing to do with abortions and never did. This decision was about certain types of contraceptives that prevent women from having to get abortions. It should be noted that most types of contraceptives were found cosher -- just not the morning after's or the IUD's. So it seems to me like they're picking and choosing which forms of contraceptives they have an issue with. It should also be noted that both vasectomies for men and viagra are still available under their insurance and was never made into a big issue. I think the larger problem is what this means for the future. And whether we will see other, more religious companies take more invasive steps.

I think he was speaking of: Can the employer force this things IN THE EMPLOYEES' PRIVATE LIVES.

The use of contraceptives is a private action with no bearing on the operation of the business.  It is a personal choice (like not wearing a hijab, eating beef, or not owning a bible) that is of no consequence to the business entity.  The employers are not forced to pass out contraceptives, or allow employees to go around passing them out while operating as an employee of the company.

But this is all moot.  The employer is NOT THE OWNERS (ie share holders) OF THE CORPORATION! it is the CORPORATION itself, and the interests and beliefs of the former do not automatically transfer to the latter.  If the Shareholders of Hobby Lobby do not want the Employees of Hobby Lobby to use contraceptives, they can use their first amendment rights to SAY that.  They can't however leverage the corporation to do their bidding.  If the shareholders want the corporation to pay off their mortgage, the corporation does not automatically have that desire too, and it is infact a violation that will strip the corporate legal protections from the owners if they do so.  You cannot comingle the person interests of the owners with the business interests of the corporation.

The only way this is a Religious Rights issue is if the CORPORATION ITSELF has religious objections to the action.  And how can it?  How can an abstract legal entity be concerned with it soul, its damnnation, sin, forgiveness, etc etc etc.  These things apply no more to a corporation than they do to the quadratic formula.  Saying a corporation has a religion is like saying a corporation can wield a pistol.  It makes no sense. That is why the religious freedoms of the first ammendment applying to the corporation make as much sense as the 2nd ammendment rights to bear arms.  A purely legal entity cannot do these things.

Since we can conclude that a corporation cannot have a religion, it then follows that a corporation can't have religious objections to actions. Hence the problem with all of this.

You make an example of an atheist forbidding actions during work.  That is not a fair comparison.  What would be is if a closely owned atheist corporation forbade its employees from donating money to church or organizations that support religious activities, and that, I GUARANTEE, would not pass this supreme court, hence a preferential treatment for religion over non-religion.

You cannot have it both ways.  You cannot have the legal protections a corporation provides as a separate legal entity AND have the company forward your personal agenda.  

The problem they had was with birth control that prevented a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus (eg, morning after pill, IUDs) which they considered a form of abortion

I realize that, I just chose not to say it because it's so ridiculous. ANd even if I agreed with their logic, it's not like they were ever handing out the procedures on a silver platter to begin with; they went of their way to make sure that the insurance companies wouldn't cover something they were already going to cover.

And what I think people who say "It's only banning 4 types of contraceptives" elsewhere on the internet misss out on is that there are people who hold religious objections to any form of birth control and even the most basic medical procedures. It's only a matter of time until another court rules in favor of those people because of the actions of the supreme court.

I am right there with you.  The whole thing is idiotic, and I find indefensable legally.  This supreme court's majority has no interest in legal justice, only an interest in being a boon for the Christian Conservative portion of this country, to the exclusion of everyone else.